O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2024 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) in E.P. No.18 of 2021 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar filed for enforcement of Arbitration Award dated 03.04.2021 in ARB Claim Petition No.146 of 2020. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the judgment debtor No.1/principal debtor before the learned Arbitrator and whereas the respondent No.1 is the disputant company/decree holder and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the other judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4/guarantors. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array in the Arbitration proceedings before the learned “Arbitrator/Registrar of Chits”.

3. The judgment debtor No.1 herein was subscriber of chit with decree holder/disputant company and judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors for the said chit transaction. The judgment debtor No.1 herein stood as successful bidder in the auction held on 21.01.2019 and after deducting the bid amount, Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to judgment debtor No.1. All the judgment debtors executed demand promissory notes and other necessary documents in favour of disputant company. The judgment debtor No.1 paid 13 installments totally and partly paid 14th installment and thereafter committed default in payment of installments. Hence, the disputant company has approached the Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator for recovery of Rs.4,58,182/- under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982. After due enquiry, the learned Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator has passed an award, dated 03.04.2021. Thereafter, the decree holder approached the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar by filing execution proceedings vide E.P.No.18 of 2022. In this regard, attachment of salary of revision petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 was ordered under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor No.1.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of revision.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the decree holder is claiming for recovery of amount from JDRs to a tune of Rs.9,60,725/-, which is the double of recoverable amount and thereby the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 in EP No.18 of 2022 is contrary to orders in Prattipati Srinivasa Rao v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited1. As can be seen from the attachment order, though the Execution Court has ordered to withhold a sum of Rs.1,95,345/-, attachment was initially to the extent of Rs.1,000/- in the net salary after deducting statutory deductions and thereafter for 1/3rd in the remaining salary under Order XXI Rule 60 (1) of the CPC. Though the Award was passed for Rs.4,58,182/-, such amount shall carry 18% interest on Rs.3,69,300/- from 31.07.2020, till the date of realization and also costs. The total amount claimed in EP No.18 of 2022 is Rs.5,86,034/-. The order of attachment dated 07.08.2024 also makes it clear that the attachment is to the extent of Rs.5,86,034/- only but not to the extent of Rs.9,60,725/- as contended by the revision petitioner. The Executing Court has only directed to withhold a sum of Rs.1,95,345/- only from the salary of judgment debtor but not to attach the said amount. Moreover, the judgment debtors have not preferred any appeal against the Award. Hence, it cannot be contended that the disputant company is claiming double the money awarded under the Award.

1 CRP Nos.3541, 3513 and 3514 of 2023 decided on 23.01.2024

6. It is further contention of the revision petitioner that the court below ought to have seen that the filing of EP is playing fraud on the court as the principal debtor paid part of the decreetal amount to the decree holder, thus, filing of EP is abuse of process of law. However, as can be seen from